STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.435 of 2009)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 13.08.2009

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 23.11.2010

Smt. Suman Dhull wife of Sh. Virender Dhull, resident of Village Pundri, Distt. Kaithal now presently residing at Flat No.16-B, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula.

……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

1.      The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.2174, Second Floor, Sector 14, Panchkula.

2.      The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 8, Panchkula.

              ....Respondent/OPs.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS.  NEENA  SANDHU,  MEMBER

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL,  MEMBER.

Argued by:          None for the appellant.

                        Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                     This is complainant’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) against the order dated 10.7.2009, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by her was dismissed.

2.                     The complainant had insured her car bearing No.CH-03-W-2272 with the OPs for the period from 3.2.2008 to 2.2.2009. On 15.6.2008, at about 8:30 a.m., her husband was driving the car when a child suddenly came in front of it and to save him, her husband turned the car to one side due to which it struck against a pillar damaging the front and left side doors of the car. The complainant informed the OPs/respondents and a surveyor was appointed who prepared an estimate of the loss caused to the car. The car was repaired by Berkley Automobiles and when it was delivered back to her, she found that it had not been repaired from the left side. Berkley Automobiles told her that they had no instructions from the OPs/respondents for repairing the car from the left side, upon which, she contacted the Customer Support Team through e-mail with a request to get the car repaired from the left side also but to no effect. Thereafter, she took the car and got it repaired from Pundri by paying Rs.10,500/- vide Bill No.339 dated 18.8.2008. She requested the OPs to pay the amount of repairs and when it was not paid, she served a legal notice and thereafter, filed the present complaint.

3.                     The OPs/respondents opposed the complaint on the ground that the car had been repaired to her satisfaction as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, that it was delivered to her after repair and she never raised any objection to the same. It was admitted that a surveyor was appointed but it was denied if the repairs were got done by the complainant from Pundri. According to them, if the car had been damaged from the left side in the accident and had not been repaired, the complainant would have taken the photographs of the car showing its damage but she did not. They denied if they are liable to make any payment as claimed.

4.                     Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                     After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.7.2009.

6.                     The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.

7.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents. None appeared for the appellant/complainant today nor had anybody appeared for her on the previous two dates. We have gone through the grounds of appeal as well as the record summoned from the learned District Forum.

8.                     The contention of the complainant was that there was damage caused to the left side of the doors and fender of the car but the surveyor did not agree to get the same repaired. In this respect, an e-mail was sent by the complainant to the OPs on 19.6.2009 to which a reply was sent by the OPs on 21.6.2009 that the claim was under investigation and would be processed subject to underwriting guidelines. They undertook to review the claim and revert to her. The learned counsel  further argued that in view of this communication, the left side front and rear door were got repaired for which a sum of Rs.3,500/- was paid to the  complainants. The wheel ARC was also got repaired on which Rs.250/- was assessed. The entire amount of Rs.3,750/- as labour were paid to the complainant as is clear from the report of the surveyor. It, therefore, cannot be said if the left side of the damage to the car was not attended to by the surveyor or it was not repaired by Berkley Automobiles Ltd.

9.                     The learned counsel for the OP has then argued that if after getting payment for the repair of the left side of the car by Berkley Automobiles Ltd., they did not repair the same, the complainant would have not taken the delivery of the car till the said part was also got repaired. Even if the delivery of the vehicle was taken, it should have been taken under protest. It was, however, not done by the complainant/appellant. Otherwise also, if after obtaining the payments from the OPs, Berkley Automobile Limited did not repair that portion of the car, it is deficiency on the part of Berkley Automobiles Ltd. and not of the OPs. It is interesting to note that the complainant has not joined Berkley Automobiles Ltd. as a party to this complaint. The OPs having already paid the compensation for the repair are not deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

10.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint was rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

23^rd  November 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.435 of 2009)

Argued by:          None for the appellant.

                        Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated the 23^rd day of November, 2010.

ORDER

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER